Graphics card Rankings

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree, in most cases the 47700 was better then the 8800gt, besides 3dmark score which nvidia cards always do better in the 47700 bet the 8800gt more then the 8800gt be t the 4770.

wouldn;t it be easier to write it this way

4770>4830>9800gt

the best way to think about it is the 4850 is equal to a 9800gtx+ revision. the 4830 is not too far off the 4850, since the 47700 is roughly as good and sometimes better then the 4850, its obviously better then the 9800gt, not to mention the overclocking potential.

Odd thing is their naming scheme though.. why call it the HD 4770, when it is clearly faster than an HD 4830 and in a higher price bracket.. why not call it the HD 4840? Unless that breaks their odd number 3rd digit thing..
 
Well, they don't have GDDR5 either, but they're starting to smarten up, if the GT300 specs are real.

To get back at this, I believe Nvidia have been miles ahead of Ati for a long time. I see it as the Amd Intel cpu war of Pentium 4 era although Intel had the higher clock speeds and were trying to push a wall, Amd were doing more calculations per cycle allowing for lower clocks and less speed. Swap Intel for Ati and Amd for Nvidia which to me shows the situation we are currently in. Why, nvidia is not obliterating their rival I have no idea and perhaps that is the point of the 300 series.
 
That makes no sense as nvidia are the ones that rely on clockspeed while ATI use raw shader power. Only recently have they been increasing clockspeeds which is exactly what they need as performance scales very, very well on rv670/rv770 architecture...

Comparing them to p4 makes no sense as no matter what you clocked the P4 to it still was a pile of poo.

Clock a 275 to its max and a 4890 to its max and guess which one comes out ahead?
 
That makes no sense as nvidia are the ones that rely on clockspeed while ATI use raw shader power. Only recently have they been increasing clockspeeds which is exactly what they need as performance scales very, very well on rv670/rv770 architecture...

Comparing them to p4 makes no sense as no matter what you clocked the P4 to it still was a pile of poo.

Clock a 275 to its max and a 4890 to its max and guess which one comes out ahead?

QFT! I think ATI's strategy is far more innovative and has a better future. nvidia's cards have been big and hot with high clock speeds. ATIs cards have been small and cool with low clock speeds. If anything, you should be likening Nvidia's cards to the p4 and ATIs cards to K8. Not the other way around.

Not to mention things are pretty much the opposite nowadays on the cpu side. Intel chips run very cool and scale very well. And while the AMD chips aren't poo, they aren't as cool or as scalable as the Intel chips either.
 
I am drunk I have no idea what I am talking about I will come back to this when sober :)

Excuses. haha.

No, but i beleive that ATI has been a long way behind for a very long time and have finally caught up enough to pay serious attention to.
 
ATI really doesnt get the respect they deserve, most people would rather a gtx 260 over a 4870 1 gb becuase nvidia puts its name out there more, or a gtx 275 over a 4890. I wouldn't say one companies cards are hotter then the other, and all different series have had their let downs. ATI simply doesn't have the commercial statud nvidia does, but they are still doing a *** good good with the new series.
 
Intel chips run very cool and scale very well. And while the AMD chips aren't poo, they aren't as cool or as scalable as the Intel chips either.

Actually, from what I've seen the Phenom II chips scale incredibly well, it's just that they don't clock anywhere near as high for 24/7 usage yet.

Anyway, my 4890 has just come so I'm going to go have a play w/ it :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom